Thaksin 'ready to sacrifice family', sets terms for quitting politics

[SICHONSTEVE]

So the fugitive from justice says if others obey the law he is prepared to sacrifice his family in order to get himself off the hook.

What a guy!

But on a serious note the Freudian slip in his statement proves one very important thing. The PM, DM and FM are only there because of him.

Redshirts........ get out of that.

He is prepared to sacrifice Thailand to save his families name and face!!!

[newcomer71]

He and Suthep make a perfect couple. May them and all their cronies/families/"friends" finish to destroy Thailand. Once for all.

You can't compare them - O.K., they are both corrupt - but on a different level. Mr. T. opened a new universe of corruption in Thailand; which has to be stopped asap.

I don't like S. at all, but I do like what he is doing now (not how he does it, but a least he does something against 'it').

Without him, Mr. T. wouldn't be so desperate now (and the red zombies wouldn't have lost at least some of their support).

Suthep family's and clan are well known in South for his malpractices and "mafia" mo.

So let's eradicate a criminal to let some other criminal take his place?

Thanks but no thanks

Sent from my Samsung GT-5500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[winstonc]

You can also see him distancing themselves from Suthep now.

Abhisit is likely feeling a little out of sorts nowadays as Suthep takes the lead.....

Wait and see ... Suthep will be marginalized more and more now.

not marginalised by those on the street i think.those are the voters..oh well it will unravel itself in good time..

[ianf]

Sociopaths are unable to accept responsibility for anything. Others are always blamed by these people. I am sorry but Thaksin is mentally ill and the cause of all the problems here in Thailand. The guy is a monster and should be removed from all influence if he cannot remove himself. What ruddy arrogance to demand that others respect the law when he has done everything he can for so many years to flout it. Not only Thai law, but international law too. I'm fed up of this man who ruins so many lives and I am fed up of those sycophants here who support him.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

[bigbamboo]

Sociopaths are unable to accept responsibility for anything. Others are always blamed by these people. I am sorry but Thaksin is mentally ill and the cause of all the problems here in Thailand. The guy is a monster and should be removed from all influence if he cannot remove himself. What ruddy arrogance to demand that others respect the law when he has done everything he can for so many years to flout it. Not only Thai law, but international law too. I'm fed up of this man who ruins so many lives and I am fed up of those sycophants here who support him.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

Interesting to hear from an expert.

I thought he behaved that way because he was a Thai politician.

[manstr23]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

You obviously need to learn a little more. Taksin did not run any where, he was already out of the country. Why would anyone be stupid enough to return to face a military coup appointed court and a corrupt government run by the meglamaniac Suthep. Abisit , whom i believe to be an honourable man was just the figurehead under Suthep.

Under these conditions, i am sure i would not return to a "Kangaroo Court" judicary.............would you be foolish enough to do so ?

Old Sailor you also need to learn a little more. Before Abhisit was to become PM we had 2 administrations from parties that belonged to Thaksin under different names, why did he not come back then? Because many other charges were pending and his influents over the courts was not assured (i.e. remember the pastry box) This man is a coward and a sociopath. But then you only write what you are told.

[jayboy]

Sociopaths are unable to accept responsibility for anything. Others are always blamed by these people. I am sorry but Thaksin is mentally ill and the cause of all the problems here in Thailand. The guy is a monster and should be removed from all influence if he cannot remove himself. What ruddy arrogance to demand that others respect the law when he has done everything he can for so many years to flout it. Not only Thai law, but international law too. I'm fed up of this man who ruins so many lives and I am fed up of those sycophants here who support him.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

Many politicians are unpleasantly self centred but that isn't the point.You suggested Thaksin was the cause of all Thailand's problems,a ludicrous statement which could only be made by someone either blinded by factionalism or wholly ignorant of the complex background to the current situation.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ROGER DUNN]

What a joke,does he really mean it or has he some other scheme

up his sleeve . Idont trust him .

[givenall]

POLITICS

Thaksin 'ready to sacrifice family' but

The Nation

Noppadon says former PM wants his rivals to adhere to law, so country can move forward

BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is ready to "sacrifice his family" by ending its political roles so the country can emerge from the ongoing political impasse and move forward, his close aide said yesterday.

However, Thaksin wants his political enemies to adhere to the rules and laws, according to Noppadon Pattama, Thaksin's legal adviser and spokesman.

Noppadon said he spoke with Thaksin yesterday morning.

"He is not the root cause of the country's problem. The problem was caused by the failure to adhere to the rules and the failure to respect the people's decision [at the ballot box].

"He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward.

"But other people also must be ready to sacrifice. It's no use if he ends his roles but Suthep still sends the PDRC to interrupt the election," he said, referring to Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC).

The PDRC shrugged off Thaksin's latest offer.

"Our goal is to get Thaksin into jail. We don't care who will get out of politics or not," key PDRC leader Thaworn Senneam said.

Thaksin's offer came as the embattled government led by his younger sister Yingluck faces mounting political pressure.

The caretaker prime minister is being investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission for alleged dereliction of duty over the government's loss-making and corruption-plagued rice price-pledging scheme.

She is also accused of malfeasance in a case being heard by the Constitutional Court in connection with her transfer of National Security Council secretary general Thawil Pliensri.

Thaksin, who left the country shortly before the Supreme Court in 2008 sentenced him to two years in jail for abuse of power, has been in self-exile overseas.

He is believed to be pulling strings behind the scenes at the ruling Pheu Thai Party.

The former PM made remarks recently that were viewed by political observers as moves to "test the water".

Earlier this year, Thaksin reportedly said he would have Yingluck step down as prime minister - a report that was later dismissed by Yingluck.

During the recent Songkran holiday, Thaksin insisted that the Shinawatra family would remain in politics.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said yesterday that he believed Thaksin wanted to return to Thailand in order to spend the latter part of his life peacefully in his home country.

Surapong also said he recently met a foreign fortune-teller who told him Thailand would become peaceful again after this month.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said people in the Shinawatra family had the right to be in politics and nobody had the right to prohibit them.

"The Shinawatras have the right to be in or out of politics. But if you are in, you should comply with the law and are ready for scrutiny," Abhisit said.

He said that to ensure peace in this country, the law must be respected.

"That means Thaksin should accept the [2008] court ruling and come back to get the penalty," the Democrat leader said.

"He may seek royal pardon later. He has the right to do so."

In a comment, Abhisit, who is Yingluck's predecessor, said yesterday that when Thaksin wanted "justice to be served" in exchange for his family to end their political roles, he believed that Thaksin was referring to a pardon for himself.

"When he talks about this, things seem to boil down to the issue of amnesty for himself. This is the main problem," Abhisit said.

A government-backed bill for blanket amnesty to people involved in recent political conflicts led to widespread public opposition that prompted Yingluck to dissolve the House of Representatives in December. Critics and the Opposition alleged that the bill was mainly aimed at benefiting Thaksin.

-- The Nation 2014-04-22

can you ever trust this man. He has known nothing but lie and corruption for many decades

Sent from my C1904 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[bigbamboo]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

You obviously need to learn a little more. Taksin did not run any where, he was already out of the country. Why would anyone be stupid enough to return to face a military coup appointed court and a corrupt government run by the meglamaniac Suthep. Abisit , whom i believe to be an honourable man was just the figurehead under Suthep.

Under these conditions, i am sure i would not return to a "Kangaroo Court" judicary.............would you be foolish enough to do so ?

Old Sailor you also need to learn a little more. Before Abhisit was to become PM we had 2 administrations from parties that belonged to Thaksin under different names, why did he not come back then? Because many other charges were pending and his influents over the courts was not assured (i.e. remember the pastry box) This man is a coward and a sociopath. But then you only write what you are told.

You can't really blame Thaksin for doing a runner from the law...... who'd want to have all that money and be stuck inside a Thai jail for a year or so with the possibility of more jail time to come. And let's face it he'd hardly be the first rich Thai to buy his way out of trouble.

If he had laid low like most criminals do when they're on the run then most people wouldn't have been to bothered but to sacrifice your country for your own selfish ends is unacceptable.

[GAZZPA]

What does he mean by his statement?

Yingluck has already said that she is the PM, there is only one and it is her. This was in response to the accusations that her brother is pulling the strings.

And here he is talking on her behalf saying hat he will "sacrifice" his families involvement in politics.

I notice he also states that "other" side must then respect the law, almost like an ultimatum. Unbelievably hypocritical coming form a man that has run away from the law and chosen exile rather then face the conviction he has.

The man is a joke, clearly he thinks he is above the law and everyone else, just looking down on everyone dictating what everyone else should do.

[Rich teacher]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Totally wrong and very misleading:

He was charged with abuse of authority which is a serious charge.

He was guilty. I remember well the TV news coverage of him signing the documents on behalf of Thailand to sell the land to his then wife.

Totally illegal and he and his wife and the smiling senior officials in the live TV spot all knew what they were doing / what they were witnessing was highly illegal.

Surely nobody in any country would disagree with laws which are there to stop PMs etc., from selling state property, at a bargain price, to their relatives.

Further, the case was heard and he was sentenced to 2 years whilst his own party were in power.

He asked for bail to arrange an appeal, it was granted. He then asked for permission to leave Thailand to attend the opening of the Olympic games abroad. Permission was granted on his promise to return to Thailand. He fled.

Subsequent to this he made to attempt to lodge any appeal and the time allowed for appeal expired.

No kangaroo court / no witch hunt / no politically motivated case involved in any way whatever.

" I remember well the TV news coverage of him signing the documents on behalf of Thailand to sell the land to his then wife."

You have obviously lost your memory or marbles or both. Your statement is a joke. Which yellow hate-book did you fish this out of.

In fact;

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100." http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Enough said!

[GAZZPA]

"The problem was caused by the failure to adhere to the rules and the failure to respect the people's decision [at the ballot box]."

Totally agree! The Pheu Thai attitude of "thanks for voting, now go home, we have your mandate to do what we want" caused big problems. The rushed through blanket amnesty bill with even two years YIngluck government included showed a disrespect which simply called for problems.

The question is why did he push so hard and that the time that he did - why was it so urgent - why is he apparently willing to give up at this time for what he has worked so hard to keep. If you answer that question certain things maybe become clearer.

If you look at his "attributes" and his weakness rather than just writing him of for being the %^& ^&& that he is then maybe things come in to focus.

Without what transpire with the failure of the bill - what was going to be the major change for Thailand and how could he have used that for his advantage - look at his previous business interests. Who are his friends and connection? Where could the Infrastructure developments fit into all of this,

What ever else you say about Thaksin, he had the ability to think big and see opportunities.

Now join the dots

Sorry, I don't see it. Is he a very wealthy businessman,, yes he is. Does that mean he has connections, yes it does (the same as all businessmen).

All I see right now is a convicted criminal who thrives on corruption. In my opinion Thailand needs to try and get rid of its corruption and the last person you want involved in key decisions is a convicted and disgraced former PM. You can see how Thailand has fallen dramatically in the global index of corrupt countries in recent years, so time to hose out the stables i think.

So, can you please be specific and join the dots for me, I would like to understand your point as to why you think Thailand needs this man, and what good you think he would do that other more honest people can't.

[billd766]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

This would be a good argument if they were both judged by impartial courts.

It would also apply if both of them broke the law, remained in the country, faced the courts and are willing to accept their punishments.

Abhisit is willing to do that and has publically said so.

Thaksin isn't and has publically said so simply by his actions in becoming a fugitive from justice.

[khunken]

Of course he is willing to sacrifice his family - he's already thrown his sister to the sacrificial lambs.

There are very likely many in PTP who are not there for the love of Thaksin (or democracy) but will take his money and support him out of fear of being a family enemy. He has also sacrificed over 2,500 lives in his 'war on drugs' (title copied from the US), Tak Bai & Krue Se. To top it off he was happy to sacrifice another 90 or so in using and paying red shirts to get back into power and get his frozen ill-gotten money back.

Yes, he'll sacrifice anybody but himself but he's lied so many times about giving up power that his credibility is zero.

[khunken]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

This would be a good argument if they were both judged by impartial courts.

It would also apply if both of them broke the law, remained in the country, faced the courts and are willing to accept their punishments.

Abhisit is willing to do that and has publically said so.

Thaksin isn't and has publically said so simply by his actions in becoming a fugitive from justice.

Also Thaksin had a court (assets scrutiny) stacked with enough yes-judges back in 2001. His then wife & interior minister - Sanoh - did the organising & paying.

The Thaksinites always ignore the start of the dynasty disaster.

[GAZZPA]

Sociopaths are unable to accept responsibility for anything. Others are always blamed by these people. I am sorry but Thaksin is mentally ill and the cause of all the problems here in Thailand. The guy is a monster and should be removed from all influence if he cannot remove himself. What ruddy arrogance to demand that others respect the law when he has done everything he can for so many years to flout it. Not only Thai law, but international law too. I'm fed up of this man who ruins so many lives and I am fed up of those sycophants here who support him.

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

Many politicians are unpleasantly self centred but that isn't the point.You suggested Thaksin was the cause of all Thailand's problems,a ludicrous statement which could only be made by someone either blinded by factionalism or wholly ignorant of the complex background to the current situation.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

He is a convicted criminal on the run, absolute fact. He is also wanted for additional charges, fact. The country is in a terrible mess, of course a fact.

Can you please summarize for me why he should not be viewed in a very bad light, and for the ignorant people like me try and explain a little of the background and complex issues that I don't understand that would change my mind about him.

It seems that haters of Thaksin very often state clear facts and have a firm grasp of the situation, and yet supporters are always vague claiming everyone else is ignorant of the "subtleties" of the situation that shed a very different light on this man.

So, please enlighten me, I genuinely want to hear what I don't understand.

[Rich teacher]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

This would be a good argument if they were both judged by impartial courts.

It would also apply if both of them broke the law, remained in the country, faced the courts and are willing to accept their punishments.

Abhisit is willing to do that and has publically said so.

Thaksin isn't and has publically said so simply by his actions in becoming a fugitive from justice.

No it wouldn't. They are not treated in the same manner by the courts, so how is it the same? Has a military junta set up a committee with the specific agenda of convicting Abhisit of absolutely anything no matter how trivial. They had to justify their coup with a conviction.

[moonao]

Anyway if the shins leave politics, shouldn't be a problem as long as there is another party that springs up, to protect democracy from the lunatic yellow fringe, and who have the will to bring those to account that have undermined democracy eg NACC, EC, Suthep, etc over the last few years, as well as amend the constitution to prevent these corrupt agencies from exercising a judicial coup etc. in the future.

There is so much discontent in the electorate regarding their stolen democracy that in the absence of the shins, a party that bases their politics on the above and provides good policy will have a strong chance of winning an election. Their chances are of course bolstered by one of the most pathetic, ineffective opposition parties in the history of thai politics.

[jayboy]

Thaksin IS the root problem here despite repeated protestations by his boot lickers to the contrary.

He will never truly leave politics, he will always try to have some puppet under his control that will do his bidding. Anyone found to be doing the bidding of a fugitive ( in the same way PT have not to mention TRT, CTP, BJT and whatever other Thaksin proxy parties there have been ) should be put in jail, stripped of assets and banned from politics for life. Politics should be for the people, by the people and done by people who are here and not fugitives on the run with huge sums of money on a power trip....

So anyone who questions whether Thaksin is the root cause of Thailand's problems is a "bootlicker".Somehow I'm surmising your grasp of the fundamentals is not very profound

Since Abhisit, Korn and many other educated opponents of Thaksin have accepted that Thailand's political problems are entrenched and predate the rise of Thaksin, does that place them in the bootlicking category as well?

[tubby johnson]

I'll never believe a word coming out of that fork-tongued, two-faced Thaksin.

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Thaksin IS the root problem here despite repeated protestations by his boot lickers to the contrary.

He will never truly leave politics, he will always try to have some puppet under his control that will do his bidding. Anyone found to be doing the bidding of a fugitive ( in the same way PT have not to mention TRT, CTP, BJT and whatever other Thaksin proxy parties there have been ) should be put in jail, stripped of assets and banned from politics for life. Politics should be for the people, by the people and done by people who are here and not fugitives on the run with huge sums of money on a power trip....

So anyone who questions whether Thaksin is the root cause of Thailand's problems is a "bootlicker".Somehow I'm surmising your grasp of the fundamentals is not very profound

Since Abhisit, Korn and many other educated opponents of Thaksin have accepted that Thailand's political problems are entrenched and predate the rise of Thaksin, does that place them in the bootlicking category as well?

Many, perhaps most, folks with long-term knowledge of all of this would agree.

That doesn't mean that the paymaster is innocent, far far from it.

Human rights atrocities can never ever be glossed over by 'past precedent'.

Now you go on with 'he's never been charged.....'.

[khunken]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

This would be a good argument if they were both judged by impartial courts.

It would also apply if both of them broke the law, remained in the country, faced the courts and are willing to accept their punishments.

Abhisit is willing to do that and has publically said so.

Thaksin isn't and has publically said so simply by his actions in becoming a fugitive from justice.

No it wouldn't. They are not treated in the same manner by the courts, so how is it the same? Has a military junta set up a committee with the specific agenda of convicting Abhisit of absolutely anything no matter how trivial. They had to justify their coup with a conviction.

Pure disinformation.

Thaksin was convicted by the Supreme court of a conflict of interest - not a committee. He also attempted to bribe the court. He also faces other far more serious cases that he ran away from.

Abhisit will have his day in court over the response to the 2010 riots despite the Thaksin-influenced DSI giving a free pass to the army.

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Anyway if the shins leave politics, shouldn't be a problem as long as there is another party that springs up, to protect democracy from the lunatic yellow fringe, and who have the will to bring those to account that have undermined democracy eg NACC, EC, Suthep, etc over the last few years, as well as amend the constitution to prevent these corrupt agencies from exercising a judicial coup etc. in the future.

There is so much discontent in the electorate regarding their stolen democracy that in the absence of the shins, a party that bases their politics on the above and provides good policy will have a strong chance of winning an election. Their chances are of course bolstered by one of the most pathetic, ineffective opposition parties in the history of thai politics.

Again, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

It's over, cash in your chips baby.

[jayboy]

A mentally ill sociopathic monster who is the sole cause of all the problems in Thailand.There are two interpretations of this statement.The first is that it is true, and thus all steps necessary to remove him should be taken.The second that it is a hysterical, buffoonish and ignorant rant ignoring the complex political and social issues that have brought the country to its present pass.I have my own views on the applicable interpretation but others must make up their own minds.

I base my personal assessment of Thaksin as a sociopath from my wide experience of working with mental health issues as well as having a sociopath in the family. I have been fascinated by the similarity in behaviours between Thaksin and other sociopaths such as Lance Armstrong, Berlusconi & idi Amin to name just three. It is not only the lies repeated ad nauseum but the manipulation that goes with them. If you search the internet for the traits of a sociopath, you may come to the same conclusion as I have.

Many politicians are unpleasantly self centred but that isn't the point.You suggested Thaksin was the cause of all Thailand's problems,a ludicrous statement which could only be made by someone either blinded by factionalism or wholly ignorant of the complex background to the current situation.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

He is a convicted criminal on the run, absolute fact. He is also wanted for additional charges, fact. The country is in a terrible mess, of course a fact.

Can you please summarize for me why he should not be viewed in a very bad light, and for the ignorant people like me try and explain a little of the background and complex issues that I don't understand that would change my mind about him.

It seems that haters of Thaksin very often state clear facts and have a firm grasp of the situation, and yet supporters are always vague claiming everyone else is ignorant of the "subtleties" of the situation that shed a very different light on this man.

So, please enlighten me, I genuinely want to hear what I don't understand.

There's no reason why Thaksin should not be viewed in a bad light.He isn't a very admirable person.Nor are most other prominent Thai politicians.

I am afraid I haven't noticed that the "haters of Thaksin" have a clear grap of the facts.Indeed they often seem incoherent.In any event they are very diverse and include high level operators terrified of losing influence given Thaksin's electoral muscle, their mainly Sino Thai middle class "useful idiot" acolytes and of course the thuggish element like Suthep together with his Southern ruffians.

I am at a loss to advise you on remedying your complete ignorance (by your own admission).There are some excellent publications, blogs, articles which would help you.Oddly enough the one thing ignoramuses never want to do is a little research.Unfortunately internet forums like this are not a very useful way of advancing knowledge.

[Rich teacher]

It would also apply if both of them broke the law, remained in the country, faced the courts and are willing to accept their punishments.

Abhisit is willing to do that and has publically said so.

Thaksin isn't and has publically said so simply by his actions in becoming a fugitive from justice.

No it wouldn't. They are not treated in the same manner by the courts, so how is it the same? Has a military junta set up a committee with the specific agenda of convicting Abhisit of absolutely anything no matter how trivial. They had to justify their coup with a conviction.

Pure disinformation.

Thaksin was convicted by the Supreme court of a conflict of interest - not a committee. He also attempted to bribe the court. He also faces other far more serious cases that he ran away from.

Abhisit will have his day in court over the response to the 2010 riots despite the Thaksin-influenced DSI giving a free pass to the army.

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100." http://slimdogsworld...01_archive.html

Anyone claiming this case was conducted impartially is either unfamiliar with the facts or has been brainwashed by the yellow lies.

[jayboy]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Thaksin IS the root problem here despite repeated protestations by his boot lickers to the contrary.

He will never truly leave politics, he will always try to have some puppet under his control that will do his bidding. Anyone found to be doing the bidding of a fugitive ( in the same way PT have not to mention TRT, CTP, BJT and whatever other Thaksin proxy parties there have been ) should be put in jail, stripped of assets and banned from politics for life. Politics should be for the people, by the people and done by people who are here and not fugitives on the run with huge sums of money on a power trip....

So anyone who questions whether Thaksin is the root cause of Thailand's problems is a "bootlicker".Somehow I'm surmising your grasp of the fundamentals is not very profound

Since Abhisit, Korn and many other educated opponents of Thaksin have accepted that Thailand's political problems are entrenched and predate the rise of Thaksin, does that place them in the bootlicking category as well?

Many, perhaps most, folks with long-term knowledge of all of this would agree.

That doesn't mean that the paymaster is innocent, far far from it.

Human rights atrocities can never ever be glossed over by 'past precedent'.

Now you go on with 'he's never been charged.....'.

I don't think any sensible person would claim Thaksin is an innocent.

Nor is his human rights record a good one.The fact he has not been charged is nothing to do with "past precedent".It has everything to do with the fact that those who want to destroy him were enthusiastic followers of his drugs war/Southern policies, and in many cases their endorsement is on record.

Anyway my main point is really non controversial, namely that despite his errors Thaksin was not the cause of Thailand's problems - though he has astutely exploited them.

[khunken]

It would also apply if both of them broke the law, remained in the country, faced the courts and are willing to accept their punishments.

Abhisit is willing to do that and has publically said so.

Thaksin isn't and has publically said so simply by his actions in becoming a fugitive from justice.

No it wouldn't. They are not treated in the same manner by the courts, so how is it the same? Has a military junta set up a committee with the specific agenda of convicting Abhisit of absolutely anything no matter how trivial. They had to justify their coup with a conviction.

Pure disinformation.

Thaksin was convicted by the Supreme court of a conflict of interest - not a committee. He also attempted to bribe the court. He also faces other far more serious cases that he ran away from.

Abhisit will have his day in court over the response to the 2010 riots despite the Thaksin-influenced DSI giving a free pass to the army.

"The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100." http://slimdogsworld...01_archive.html

Anyone claiming this case was conducted impartially is either unfamiliar with the facts or has been brainwashed by the yellow lies.

Whatever the opinion of the NCCC (who?) the Supreme court found differently. As for Thaksin not directly supervising the FIDC - that is immaterial as he indirectly had responsibility for the fund. Kittirat more recently had the FIDF debt transferred from the government (repeat government) to the BOT (under the carpet) to allow PTP more borrowing.

Anyone attempting to support Thaksin's efforts to refute the verdict is brainwashed by Shin dynasty lies as you appear to be.

[Ricardo]

The big difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is that Abhisit stayed in the country to face the music.

He did not run away. He accepted that he could be charged with man slaughter and even sentenced to death. He takes it as a man and face the consequences of his government's policies.

Thaksin on the other hand ran away like a coward. He did not want to take responsibility. He did not want to stand up for or defend the results of his government's policies.

So the key word as I see it is "responsibility" - and Thaksin's lack of it. He says that ""He is ready to sacrifice for the country and to have his family end their political career so that the country can move forward." Is that just another way to again very conveniently run away from his and his family's responsibility of the current state of affairs?

You obviously need to learn a little more. Taksin did not run any where, he was already out of the country. Why would anyone be stupid enough to return to face a military coup appointed court and a corrupt government run by the meglamaniac Suthep. Abisit , whom i believe to be an honourable man was just the figurehead under Suthep.

Under these conditions, i am sure i would not return to a "Kangaroo Court" judicary.............would you be foolish enough to do so ?

Old Sailor you also need to learn a little more. Before Abhisit was to become PM we had 2 administrations from parties that belonged to Thaksin under different names, why did he not come back then? Because many other charges were pending and his influents over the courts was not assured (i.e. remember the pastry box) This man is a coward and a sociopath. But then you only write what you are told.

"why did he not come back then ?"

In fact Thaksin did return, for a few months in 2008, while the two Thaksinista PPP-led coalition-governments were in-power.

You may recall his kissing the ground, upon landing at Swampy, a heartrending sight, many of us also recall his declaring complete confidence in the court to try his case fairly, and his willingness to abide by their verdict, and the curious affair of the attempted-bribe in-a-lunch-box, for which his lawyer served time..

That's the same court now decried as being political or kangaroo or whatever. Curious how the party-line changes, after it brings-in a fully-explained/justified verdict, which goes against the Big Boss ?

If only, while he was in the country, other cases had also been allowed to proceed, when he might have easily been present to hear the charges read ? But for some reason neither PM-Samak nor PM-Somchai pressed-ahead with those cases, to clear his name, how curious !

[ianf]

To describe Thaksin as a sociopath helps people to understand why he behaves in the way he does. Sociopaths are not insane but they have something inherent in their behaviours which means that they can often convincingly feign normal human behaviour in order to manipulate others, inside they feel nothing but a deep rooted self-interest. This 'normal behaviour' could last a few months. The easiest way to describe their behaviour is that of a manipulative con-man. He is the person who lies to your face, even when he doesn’t have to. Sociopaths have an absence of empathy and very poor impulse control, with a total lack of conscience. They tend to be egocentric, callous, manipulative, deceptive, superficial, irresponsible and parasitic. Many are well-educated or come from a privileged background and they can be found in careers such as Business, Finance, Politics, and anything else that will give them power and control over others. It is notable that people fall into their spell because those people themselves do not understand the nature of their clever lies and are themselves easily manipulated. Some supporters have sociopathic tendencies themselves, recognise a fellow traveller and hope to gain their own power and self-aggrandisement by being supportive. We have seen this in the behaviour of people like Tilda and Jaturporn and other acolytes. Lance Armstrong, for example, also had his acolytes (team mates and tv commentators) who hung on to his shirt tails in order to further their own careers and positions. I post this information because it is important, in my view, to place Thaksin's statements in context and also perhaps to show why, despite his transparent and appalling behaviour, he can still garner the support of some farangs that post here. It is because of their self-serving ability to manipulate and to ignore all obstacles placed in front of them (in Thaksin's case, legal institutions, family, court cases and so on) that they are so dangerous and powerful. One poster thinks I've gone over the top when I say that he has destroyed this country. Certainly that is the view of Thai people who have tried not to be drawn into the political arena - based on what they themselves have experienced with the deep divisions now occurring in this society. And to confirm his latest manipulative act (about withdrawing from politics) who recalls Thaksin's statement of a few years ago when he stated categorically that he would no longer immerse himself in politics?